At 8/29/2013 10:28:57 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:If the south won the civil war, what would it look like today?

like sh*t

Why's that. I think it would be very conservative. Slavery would have died quickly and racism would not have been such an issue since it would not have been such a violent change. I think it would have state's rights. I think it would have a powerful military. I think it would be self dependent.

At 8/29/2013 10:28:57 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:If the south won the civil war, what would it look like today?

like sh*t

Why's that. I think it would be very conservative. Slavery would have died quickly and racism would not have been such an issue since it would not have been such a violent change.

Thats just retarded. The South fought tooth and nail to keep slavery they wouldnt simply give it up or let it die, and they also wouldnt have allegedly been less racist since the South has a long, long, long history of imposing laws enforcing segregation, jim crow laws, and other things meant to preserve racism....

I think it would have state's rights. I think it would have a powerful military. I think it would be self dependent.

Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

At 8/29/2013 10:28:57 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:If the south won the civil war, what would it look like today?

like sh*t

Why's that. I think it would be very conservative. Slavery would have died quickly and racism would not have been such an issue since it would not have been such a violent change.

Thats just retarded. The South fought tooth and nail to keep slavery they wouldnt simply give it up or let it die, and they also wouldnt have allegedly been less racist since the South has a long, long, long history of imposing laws enforcing segregation, jim crow laws, and other things meant to preserve racism....

I think it would have state's rights. I think it would have a powerful military. I think it would be self dependent.

Your argument is flawed. The south only fought for state's rights. Slavery was an issue, yes, but the immorality was already showing through and Britain had already stopped the slave trade. Furthermore, the cost of slaves would have increased and slavery would have been less profitable, especially with the new technology.As far as racism goes, most racist beliefs were due primarily towards the reconstruction and how the northernors treated the free blacks. If the immorality of slavery was the cause of the end of slavery, odds are people wouldn't have treated the blacks so badly.

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

Slavery was an issue, yes, but the immorality was already showing through and Britain had already stopped the slave trade.

Like the South has ever given a sh*t about what is or isnt 'immoral', wanna know how many times Southern governors prevented black students from going to school just because they were racist mother f*ckers?

Furthermore, the cost of slaves would have increased and slavery would have been less profitable, especially with the new technology.

Thats just wishful thinking, technology doesnt reduce the need for slaves it increases it. Cotton wasnt a profitable crop to grow until the cotton gin was introduced, then Cotton became king in the south and the demand for slavery only intensified.

As far as racism goes, most racist beliefs were due primarily towards the reconstruction and how the northernors treated the free blacks.

Racism existed before the Civil War happened ya retard, racist beliefs were primarily caused by southerners being racist dipsh*ts....

If the immorality of slavery was the cause of the end of slavery, odds are people wouldn't have treated the blacks so badly.

You do realize that just defies logic though right?

Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery. They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Are you retarded or something?

They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

Again, are you a retard or something?

Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

At 8/29/2013 10:44:00 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:Your argument is flawed. The south only fought for state's rights. Slavery was an issue, yes, but the immorality was already showing through and Britain had already stopped the slave trade. Furthermore, the cost of slaves would have increased and slavery would have been less profitable, especially with the new technology.As far as racism goes, most racist beliefs were due primarily towards the reconstruction and how the northernors treated the free blacks. If the immorality of slavery was the cause of the end of slavery, odds are people wouldn't have treated the blacks so badly.

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Are you retarded or something?

They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

Again, are you a retard or something?

Sorry, that is what really happened. Granted, it was a few people who orchestrated this, not the entire south.

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Are you retarded or something?

They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

Again, are you a retard or something?

Sorry, that is what really happened. Granted, it was a few people who orchestrated this, not the entire south.

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Are you retarded or something?

They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

Again, are you a retard or something?

Sorry, that is what really happened. Granted, it was a few people who orchestrated this, not the entire south.

Oh please.... The South fought for Slavery, their EXCUSE was 'States Rights'.... If they really were fighting for states rights they wouldnt have seceded before Lincoln ever became president....

The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery.

Are you retarded or something?

They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

Again, are you a retard or something?

Sorry, that is what really happened. Granted, it was a few people who orchestrated this, not the entire south.

Put the shrooms down buddy

Why do you think that I am either crazy, retarded, or on drugs.

Because youre acting like a crazy retard on drugs.....

Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

Well, I can guarantee you the CSA would not last very long if it were able to beat back the USA. First off, the CSA was founded with a culture based on homogeny and sameness of thought: namely, that slavery was not just a necessary evil, but in actuality a necessary GOOD. This isolationist and inward looking societal mindset would eventually lead to stagnation of thought, science, economy, etc. The CSA too was almost entirely based on agriculture - another example of an undiversified way of life. There's also the fact that the world was condemning slavery, so the CSA would probably become a pariah state. Also, the government was just much too weak for it to really pay for anything.

Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.
- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus

At 8/29/2013 10:28:57 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:If the south won the civil war, what would it look like today?

like sh*t

Why's that. I think it would be very conservative. Slavery would have died quickly and racism would not have been such an issue since it would not have been such a violent change. I think it would have state's rights. I think it would have a powerful military. I think it would be self dependent

more likely outcome is that you will have two separate United States rather than one combination of two.

Put it this way, I am pro-secessionist, but the North did have the right (through both guns and politics) to forcefully abolish slavery with an iron fist. Slavery has no place in a nation where all men are supposedly created equal, and where we all are entitled to life and liberty. I ultimately think Lincoln was still a vehement racist, but he did do some good things, but what he had to do do achieve those good things almost outweighs them in corruption, cronyism, and suppression.

At 8/30/2013 10:18:04 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:bench, you can be pro-secessionist without being pro-slavery or racist.

Sure, but you have to accept that whether you believed in slavery or not, if you supported the south, your support was principally in defense of a regime based on slavery, whose existence was contingent upon slave labor, whose social structure was oriented by slavery, whose culture and values were shaped in defense of slavery accordingly, and whose contemporary supporters either owned, or aspired to own slaves. The Confederate States are inseparable from slavery, as such.

You just drink academia cool aid and reinforce your ideals with hatred and insults.

You can choose to bury your head in the sand to hide from the light if you choose, but that doesn't mean that you won't get burned by the sun, because it's still there whether you accept that it is or not.

At 8/30/2013 10:18:04 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:bench, you can be pro-secessionist without being pro-slavery or racist.

Sure, but you have to accept that whether you believed in slavery or not, if you supported the south, your support was principally in defense of a regime based on slavery, whose existence was contingent upon slave labor, whose social structure was oriented by slavery, whose culture and values were shaped in defense of slavery accordingly, and whose contemporary supporters either owned, or aspired to own slaves. The Confederate States are inseparable from slavery, as such.

I actually said in an earlier post that it was practical at the end of the day for the North to keep the states united, but in many other situations states should be able to secede.

You just drink academia cool aid and reinforce your ideals with hatred and insults.

You can choose to bury your head in the sand to hide from the light if you choose, but that doesn't mean that you won't get burned by the sun, because it's still there whether you accept that it is or not.

Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.

At 8/29/2013 10:55:06 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery. They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

The claim that the Civil War was fought over states rights, which doesn't primarily include slavery, is itself a myth. It's one that was deliberately spread by dozens of books, and later films, in the post-war period, which many parts of the South have never let go of, and many others have looked back on historical documents building this myth, and taken them at their word.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a massive violation of states rights, supported by the South's Democrats, in order to recapture escaped slaves in other states. The Compromise of 1850 forced Northern states to comply with federal standards about respecting Southern states claims to slaves.

This is not to say the North and Republican party didn't want to use Federal power to stop slavery, or that Southern states didn't secede because of a lack of influence at the federal level due to the electoral college. But, had the South been in power their goal would not have been to "restore states rights", but to use that same federal power to propagate slavery, something made explicit in their reasons for secession and in their actions prior to the war(http://sunsite.utk.edu...).

You could say that state's rights was at issue, but not without the context of fighting for state's rights to slavery, which means saying that slavery was a primary cause isn't inaccurate(to the degree that subjective political influences in complex national movements can be primarily identified, at all, which is another can of worms). Tariffs and such were issues, sure, but this doesn't rebut that it was mainly over what they considered the state's right to slavery. This, again, is pointed out in the secessionist's own documents. Prior to the war the South had no problem proposing that new states be made to respect slavery and that Northern states not be permitted to ban it, it was only as the debate was lost that compromise measures were suggested to allow states to choose(although again with federal laws providing Southerners with rights over African Americans in those new states).

It was primarily about a power imbalance,like every revolution in human history, but that doesn't mean the main trigger causing Southern political and economic groups to support secession wasn't the threatened loss of income and power distribution that would result from weakening or abolishing slavery and giving voting rights to African Americans, or that this debate wasn't the focus by which it became clear the South was losing it's political influence.

And, really, that's all I'm going to say about that. Frankly, I've already broken one of my own rules:

"Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan" -JFK
"You all stink like poo poo" - Rich Davis
"That idea may just be crazy enough... TO GET US ALL KILLED!" -Squidward Tentacles
"My heart is always breaking for the ghosts that haunt this room." -Nate Ruess

At 8/29/2013 10:55:06 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery. They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

The claim that the Civil War was fought over states rights, which doesn't primarily include slavery, is itself a myth. It's one that was deliberately spread by dozens of books, and later films, in the post-war period, which many parts of the South have never let go of, and many others have looked back on historical documents building this myth, and taken them at their word.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a massive violation of states rights, supported by the South's Democrats, in order to recapture escaped slaves in other states. The Compromise of 1850 forced Northern states to comply with federal standards about respecting Southern states claims to slaves.

This is not to say the North and Republican party didn't want to use Federal power to stop slavery, or that Southern states didn't secede because of a lack of influence at the federal level due to the electoral college. But, had the South been in power their goal would not have been to "restore states rights", but to use that same federal power to propagate slavery, something made explicit in their reasons for secession and in their actions prior to the war(http://sunsite.utk.edu...).

You could say that state's rights was at issue, but not without the context of fighting for state's rights to slavery, which means saying that slavery was a primary cause isn't inaccurate(to the degree that subjective political influences in complex national movements can be primarily identified, at all, which is another can of worms). Tariffs and such were issues, sure, but this doesn't rebut that it was mainly over what they considered the state's right to slavery. This, again, is pointed out in the secessionist's own documents. Prior to the war the South had no problem proposing that new states be made to respect slavery and that Northern states not be permitted to ban it, it was only as the debate was lost that compromise measures were suggested to allow states to choose(although again with federal laws providing Southerners with rights over African Americans in those new states).

It was primarily about a power imbalance,like every revolution in human history, but that doesn't mean the main trigger causing Southern political and economic groups to support secession wasn't the threatened loss of income and power distribution that would result from weakening or abolishing slavery and giving voting rights to African Americans, or that this debate wasn't the focus by which it became clear the South was losing it's political influence.

And, really, that's all I'm going to say about that. Frankly, I've already broken one of my own rules:

Yep. The specific state right being fought over was slavery. It's in almost every one of the declarations for secession. And yes. They may not have agreed to the union if they'd known 50 years later they were going to have to give up their slaves. Yes, it was probably a consideration that it would wreck their economy. But the fight was most definitely about slavery.

There are those that say that U.S. slavery would have been abolished anyway given the cultural shift in western culture at the time. That the civil war was unnecessary and Lincoln a bloodthirsty warmonger. Maybe, maybe not.

As for the OP: I think the U.S. probably would not have recovered and hit the industrial peak that it did. I think it probably would have fractured into thirty states and we'd likely be fighting petty border skirmishes today. Either literally or in the Supreme Court. Which would be almost as lame as watching the Supreme Court redefine the Constitution on party lines.

At 8/29/2013 10:28:57 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:If the south won the civil war, what would it look like today?

like sh*t

Why's that. I think it would be very conservative. Slavery would have died quickly and racism would not have been such an issue since it would not have been such a violent change. I think it would have state's rights. I think it would have a powerful military. I think it would be self dependent.

This is the epitome of wishful thinking.

Racism didn't end with slavery, it literally took the goddamn US ARMY to integrate little rock Central High School, almost a hundred years after the Civil war ended, which also literally took the US ARMY to end. Those first black students were subjected to verbal and physical abuse by fellow students. Virtually every attempt to provide blacks with equal rights, was met with vehement opposition. In 1958 Virginia closed 9 schools rather than have them integrated. Georgia's Wilcox County, had it's first integrated prom THIS YEAR some 148 years after the civil war ended.

At 8/29/2013 10:55:06 AM, Cowboy0108 wrote:The south's main goal of secession was state's rights. The leaders of the south WANTED Lincoln to win the election because Lincoln was anti-slavery. They wanted to have slavery as an excuse for secession saying that the south could not survive under Lincoln's ideas. Really, their excuse was slavery, but they really wanted states rights. This is stuff you don't learn in history class, you only learn what the government wants you to hear. Which would not be a problem if the south won, just saying.

The claim that the Civil War was fought over states rights, which doesn't primarily include slavery, is itself a myth. It's one that was deliberately spread by dozens of books, and later films, in the post-war period, which many parts of the South have never let go of, and many others have looked back on historical documents building this myth, and taken them at their word.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a massive violation of states rights, supported by the South's Democrats, in order to recapture escaped slaves in other states. The Compromise of 1850 forced Northern states to comply with federal standards about respecting Southern states claims to slaves.

This is not to say the North and Republican party didn't want to use Federal power to stop slavery, or that Southern states didn't secede because of a lack of influence at the federal level due to the electoral college. But, had the South been in power their goal would not have been to "restore states rights", but to use that same federal power to propagate slavery, something made explicit in their reasons for secession and in their actions prior to the war(http://sunsite.utk.edu...).

You could say that state's rights was at issue, but not without the context of fighting for state's rights to slavery, which means saying that slavery was a primary cause isn't inaccurate(to the degree that subjective political influences in complex national movements can be primarily identified, at all, which is another can of worms). Tariffs and such were issues, sure, but this doesn't rebut that it was mainly over what they considered the state's right to slavery. This, again, is pointed out in the secessionist's own documents. Prior to the war the South had no problem proposing that new states be made to respect slavery and that Northern states not be permitted to ban it, it was only as the debate was lost that compromise measures were suggested to allow states to choose(although again with federal laws providing Southerners with rights over African Americans in those new states).

It was primarily about a power imbalance,like every revolution in human history, but that doesn't mean the main trigger causing Southern political and economic groups to support secession wasn't the threatened loss of income and power distribution that would result from weakening or abolishing slavery and giving voting rights to African Americans, or that this debate wasn't the focus by which it became clear the South was losing it's political influence.

And, really, that's all I'm going to say about that. Frankly, I've already broken one of my own rules:

1. Tariff of 1828 was passed and upheld for four years by Andrew Jackson, which crushed the Southern economy, impoverishing the people of the South.

2. Lincoln was an ardent supporter of the Morrill Tariff, which would've done the same thing as the Tariff of 1828.

3. Even if every Southern Senator and Representative voted against it, it still would've passed under the Republican control, ruining the Southern Economy once again.

4. There was no threat to the institution of slavery at the time. Lincoln said in his inaugural address, and during his campaign multiple times, that he had no intention to abolish slavery. This means that there was no immediate threat to the institution of slavery.I believe slavery was most definitely a contributing factor at the time to the division between the North and the South, but not a primary reason.

5. The Morrill Tariff, however, was an immediate threat to the Southern Economy, in fact, it was signed by President Buchanan directly after Lincoln was elected.

6. Only 5% of the Southern Population owned slaves. Roughly 90% of the people who didn't own slaves, owned family farms and couldn't bear the weight of double prices on machinery that was caused by these 'protective' tariffs.

7. I grant that Slavery was a contributing factor to the Civil War, and might have eventually led to Civil War if threatened to be abolished at the federal level, but we have to remember that:a. There was no threat to it.b. The Southern abolitionist movement was larger than the North's, they had gotten more abolitionist groups than the North by the early 1830s, and with the momentum they had at the point of the Civil War, it would've been abolished probably around 20-30 years from the Civil War, without the tensions of racism caused by the War.c. The South must have been incredibly stupid if they were to believe that there was an imminent threat to slavery that was greater than the threat to their economy.

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." ~Calvin Coolidge

If the South wanted Lincoln to be elected specifically for the purpose of seceding, can you please explain why four states (including VA, and the confederate capital of Richmond) waited until Lincoln called for an invasion of the South before they seceded? Also, if the sole reason for secession was slavery, might you also explain why there were four slave states that stayed with the union?

The states rights argument is no "myth". You have to be totally ignorant of the circumstances involved in the creation of our country to make a claim like that. The states rights "myth" you speak of nearly kept our constitution from ever being adopted.Labeling authors as myth pushers (those with historical doctorates, no less) simply because they advocate an idea counter to your beliefs is disingenuous at best, and out right idiotic at worst.

The fugitive slave act was no different than state extradition laws. If it was such a massive violation of state rights, might you elaborate on that claim?

How can you possibly say that the South would not be concerned with states rights if they continued to hold majority power at the federal level? Do you have any shred of evidence leading you to this conclusion? Or are you insinuating that a need to "propagate slavery" would somehow lead the South to infringe upon the states? If that is your stance, you have failed to show any logical route by which this abdication would occur. Certainly "propagating slavery" as you put it, would not lead to such a policy. What you label as propagation, the southern people labeled as fair access to lands jointly owned by all the people of The United States. The Supreme Court also affirmed this belief (a ruling that still stands today). Once the sovereign people of the those lands petition for statehood, they should be able to do it under whatever economic make up they so choose, provided it is federally legal, which of course, slavery was.

Calling me a denialist because I believe in the cause my forbears faught and died for is offensive in the extreme. I appologize if my tone reflects my offense, however I would be remiss if I did not suggest that; perhaps the reason you have such displeasure discussing the civil war with what you call "denialists" is due to the judgmental and overbearing nature by which you dismiss thier beliefs!

At 10/10/2013 10:19:19 AM, jnedwards11 wrote:If the South wanted Lincoln to be elected specifically for the purpose of seceding, can you please explain why four states (including VA, and the confederate capital of Richmond) waited until Lincoln called for an invasion of the South before they seceded? Also, if the sole reason for secession was slavery, might you also explain why there were four slave states that stayed with the union?

The states rights argument is no "myth". You have to be totally ignorant of the circumstances involved in the creation of our country to make a claim like that. The states rights "myth" you speak of nearly kept our constitution from ever being adopted.Labeling authors as myth pushers (those with historical doctorates, no less) simply because they advocate an idea counter to your beliefs is disingenuous at best, and out right idiotic at worst.

The fugitive slave act was no different than state extradition laws. If it was such a massive violation of state rights, might you elaborate on that claim?

How can you possibly say that the South would not be concerned with states rights if they continued to hold majority power at the federal level? Do you have any shred of evidence leading you to this conclusion? Or are you insinuating that a need to "propagate slavery" would somehow lead the South to infringe upon the states? If that is your stance, you have failed to show any logical route by which this abdication would occur. Certainly "propagating slavery" as you put it, would not lead to such a policy. What you label as propagation, the southern people labeled as fair access to lands jointly owned by all the people of The United States. The Supreme Court also affirmed this belief (a ruling that still stands today). Once the sovereign people of the those lands petition for statehood, they should be able to do it under whatever economic make up they so choose, provided it is federally legal, which of course, slavery was.

Calling me a denialist because I believe in the cause my forbears faught and died for is offensive in the extreme. I appologize if my tone reflects my offense, however I would be remiss if I did not suggest that; perhaps the reason you have such displeasure discussing the civil war with what you call "denialists" is due to the judgmental and overbearing nature by which you dismiss thier beliefs!

Who are you addressing?

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." ~Calvin Coolidge